and the shooter is....

[Gob]

The identity of the Capitol Police officer who shot the MAGA rioter on camera on January 6 has remained one of the most closely guarded secrets in America.



But I know who it is.

I know his name, his age, his rank, his family status and his service record.


I know all this because DailyMail.com journalists did their job and found out, as I am sure have journalists from other news organizations.

Although I’m equally sure that many prestigious left-leaning news organizations - who ought to know better - have probably not even bothered.

Nobody has reported the information yet because there has been enormous pressure put on the media from the Capitol Police and the officer’s legal team not to do so for fear it would endanger his life.

That is a perfectly legitimate concern.

Emotions are still running scarily high about what happened that day.

But given the scale of global attention this shooting attracted, and the overwhelming public interest in the dreadful events of January 6, how tenable is this ongoing wall of silence?

Particularly as the National Commission into the riot is coming soon.

It seems increasingly outrageous to me that you, the public, have no idea who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt.

It doesn’t matter whether you support the action of the rioters that day, or, like me, you found it a shocking and reprehensible act of insurrection aimed at the very heartbeat of US democracy fueled by a woefully reckless President Trump.

What matters is that justice is seen to be done, and that means every salient detail from what occurred is made public.

As I write this, even Ashli Babbitt’s own family don’t know for sure who killed her or been told the details of the investigation that cleared the officer’s actions.

How can that be right?

Her widower Aaron Babbitt has now filed a lawsuit claiming the Metropolitan Police Department failed to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request either to provide or deny his request for information.

'Somebody in D.C. knows, I think a lot of people know, but nobody is telling us and the silence is deafening,' Babbitt told Fox News's Tucker Carlson on June 14.

What is incontrovertible is that Ashli Babbitt was shot dead as she tried to climb through a window into the Speaker of the House's lobby during the riot by Trump supporters who had invaded the Capitol in a bid to prevent the certification of the results of the presidential election in which Joe Biden defeated Trump by 306 electoral college votes to 232.

Cops had warned her to stop, but she pressed forward.

The confrontation was caught on cellphone video as Babbitt, unarmed and wearing a Trump flag as a cape, climbed up to squeeze through the opening.

The footage showed the unnamed officer darting out of a corridor as she was ready to jump down and shooting her in the left shoulder from a few feet away.

Babbitt, 35, an Air Force veteran from San Diego, slumped to the floor in a pool of blood.

She was rushed to the hospital but died later that day.

Capitol Hill Police chiefs swiftly announced that the officer who fired at Babbitt had been placed on leave pending an independent inquiry into his use of lethal force by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police.

But both departments ignored federal government guidance urging transparency in officer-involved shootings and declined to name the officer.

When DailyMail.com asked for confirmation of his identity, Thomas DiBiase, General Counsel for the Capitol Police, wrote back requesting that we 'refrain' from naming the officer involved 'until the conclusion of the ongoing investigation,' citing 'threats a number of Capitol Police officers have received in connection with the events of January 6th.'

That investigation was concluded in April when the officer’s actions were deemed lawful by the Department of Justice, which said there was no evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

In that announcement, the department still did not identify him and have continued not to do so.

But other officers who have shot people this year, either with justification or not, have been identified publicly.

In April, Officer Nicholas Reardon was named within a day of fatally firing four shots at knife-wielding 16-year-old Ma'khia Bryant as she charged at two women in Columbus, Ohio.

Also in April, Kim Potter was named as the officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.

And Eric Stillman was identified as the Chicago cop who fatally shot 13-year-old Adam Toledo during a foot chase in March.

By stark contrast, the U.S. Capitol Police have not even held a single briefing on Babbitt's death.

continues...

[Crackpot]

What public interest does this information serve? In all the other cases listed the scope of those involved was limited in cases where the police generally controlled the situation and the actions of the individual are critical. That is simply not the case here. Know g the name of the officer does nothing to advance the public discourse especially as the the use of force was deemed justified and therefore has the full support of the department there is no internal dissension no suggestion that the officer was so how rogue and acting outside of department guidelines. The only thing naming the officer will serve is to place the officer in danger.

This article is nothing more than piers Morgan stroking his ego by letting everyone know he knows information not generally known while pretending he doesn’t love the position he’s in (I would tell you if I could really)

[Big RR]

I think the public interest in having all the information public is to assure it is not swept under the rug and ignored. Making the details of the investigation and the disposition public permits the public to follow it up and be sure that the police don't just bury it. It's necessary to keep public confidence, especially since these things are often just covered up if there is no accountability. The openness encourages honesty and assures that all persons are treated the same (face it, if I got into a fight and killed or maimed my neighbor, it would similarly made public).

Imagine how different it might have been if the RC church Had openness in its investigations of sexual abuse rather than just transferring the offender to another parish.

[ex-khobar Andy]

This article is nothing more than piers Morgan stroking his ego by letting everyone know he knows information not generally known while pretending he doesn’t love the position he’s in (I would tell you if I could really)

This.

[BoSoxGal]

I’ve read elsewhere that the officer has already received death threats so clearly the identity has been leaked to some degree.

I have mixed feelings because I’m not recalling any other case where the identity of a law enforcement officer who killed a suspect in the line of duty was kept secret from the public. I’m sure there probably has been such a case, but it’s not coming to mind.

The officer will be looking over her shoulder the rest of her life, I suspect. The Trumpian mob is insane.

[Big RR]

I is a double edged sword BSG, but IMHO full disclosure is necessary if the public is to have any confidence in the police. A lot of things get covered up, and it just erodes the confidence; but I believe he confidence is essential if we are to have a functional police force. I really wish there were another way, but I cannot think of one.

[Crackpot]

There is public interest in releasing the details of the incident the name, however, is fine being officer REDACTED until such time as evidence of an actual crime is found or at the very least that a civil case has found sufficient footing to proceed to trial.

[Burning Petard]

I find it absolutely reprehensible that more of the rioters were not shot.

snailgate

[Bicycle Bill]

According to what I'm hearing, the right-wing ⃥r⃥i⃥o⃥t⃥e⃥r⃥s⃥ ...uh, 'patriots'... are flooding sites like Facebook and Twitter with the person's name.  So I guess it's OK to 'dox' someone now, when it serves YOUR purposes.

Of course, they don't realize that this pretty much eliminates any possibility of a trial by jury since it could be quickly and easily argued that by releasing this information to the public such an act has irrevocably tainted the jury pool, since any potential juror could have found out and made a determination in their own mind, thus making it impossible to find an unbiased panel.

-"BB"-

[liberty]

What public interest does this information serve? In all the other cases listed the scope of those involved was limited in cases where the police generally controlled the situation and the actions of the individual are critical. That is simply not the case here. Know g the name of the officer does nothing to advance the public discourse especially as the the use of force was deemed justified and therefore has the full support of the department there is no internal dissension no suggestion that the officer was so how rogue and acting outside of department guidelines. The only thing naming the officer will serve is to place the officer in danger.

This article is nothing more than piers Morgan stroking his ego by letting everyone know he knows information not generally known while pretending he doesn’t love the position he’s in (I would tell you if I could really)

He murdered a woman he did not need to kill. You can kill the right people any time you want, is that right. He murdered her in public, not even in his home. Since these criminals protect each other, they all are guilty.

[liberty]

According to what I'm hearing, the right-wing ⃥r⃥i⃥o⃥t⃥e⃥r⃥s⃥ ...uh, 'patriots'... are flooding sites like Facebook and Twitter with the person's name.  So I guess it's OK to 'dox' someone now, when it serves YOUR purposes.

Of course, they don't realize that this pretty much eliminates any possibility of a trial by jury since it could be quickly and easily argued that by releasing this information to the public such an act has irrevocably tainted the jury pool, since any potential juror could have found out and made a determination in their own mind, thus making it impossible to find an unbiased panel.

-"BB"-

That would be true of every case, wouldn't it?

[liberty]

I find it absolutely reprehensible that more of the rioters were not shot.

snailgate

Do you feel that way about all riots, and if so, why have you not said so?

[Bicycle Bill]

The window the ⃥r⃥i⃥o⃥t⃥e⃥r⃥ ... uh, 'patriotic citizen'... was trying to force her way through did not break by itself.  Violence had already been displayed on the part of the ⃥r⃥i⃥o⃥t⃥e⃥r⃥s⃥ ... uh, 'patriotic citizens', and the Capitol Police officer was justifiably in fear of his life.  And as any good Second Amendment supporter/NRA member/Trump bootlicker/rednecked good ol' boy will tell you, deadly force is permissable in such circumstances.

And seriously, if the officer WAS actually shooting to kill, don't you think he would have shot her somewhere other than in the shoulder?

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

Mr. Liberty, I have not said so before because I know of no similar situation. If you can show me a time where a massed group individuals have attempted to interrupt a legislative body while shouting to hang the presiding officer of that body, I will agree that they should be met with lethal gunfire if lesser force has not stopped them. Rioters in Detroit after the killing of M L King were certainly met with gunfire; in some cases twin 50s on the back of jeeps were used to cut down buildings, with people inside.

snailgate.

[liberty]

Mr. Liberty, I have not said so before because I know of no similar situation. If you can show me a time where a massed group individuals have attempted to interrupt a legislative body while shouting to hang the presiding officer of that body, I will agree that they should be met with lethal gunfire if lesser force has not stopped them. Rioters in Detroit after the killing of M L King were certainly met with gunfire; in some cases twin 50s on the back of jeeps were used to cut down buildings, with people inside.

snailgate.

What are you talking about; you know better? If Pence were in danger of being lynched, you would provide the rope. The protesters had no rope or gun, and the only person shot was an unarmed woman, murder by Lt. Michael L. Byrd. What would have been the reaction if a black woman had been murdered during a leftist protest, comrade.

[liberty]

The window the ⃥r⃥i⃥o⃥t⃥e⃥r⃥ ... uh, 'patriotic citizen'... was trying to force her way through did not break by itself.  Violence had already been displayed on the part of the ⃥r⃥i⃥o⃥t⃥e⃥r⃥s⃥ ... uh, 'patriotic citizens', and the Capitol Police officer was justifiably in fear of his life.  And as any good Second Amendment supporter/NRA member/Trump bootlicker/rednecked good ol' boy will tell you, deadly force is permissable in such circumstances.

And seriously, if the officer WAS actually shooting to kill, don't you think he would have shot her somewhere other than in the shoulder?

-"BB"-

Bad shot liberal

[Joe Guy]

What are you talking about; you know better? If Pence were in danger of being lynched, you would provide the rope. The protesters had no rope or gun, and the only person shot was an unarmed woman, murder by Lt. Michael L. Byrd. What would have been the reaction if a black woman had been murdered during a leftist protest, comrade.

I guess you missed this on January 6th, lib....

[BoSoxGal]

Mr. Liberty, I have not said so before because I know of no similar situation. If you can show me a time where a massed group individuals have attempted to interrupt a legislative body while shouting to hang the presiding officer of that body, I will agree that they should be met with lethal gunfire if lesser force has not stopped them. Rioters in Detroit after the killing of M L King were certainly met with gunfire; in some cases twin 50s on the back of jeeps were used to cut down buildings, with people inside.

snailgate.

What are you talking about; you know better? If Pence were in danger of being lynched, you would provide the rope. The protesters had no rope or gun, and the only person shot was an unarmed woman, murder by Lt. Michael L. Byrd. What would have been the reaction if a black woman had been murdered during a leftist protest, comrade.

Prosecutors: Capitol Rioters Intended to ‘Capture and Assassinate’ Elected Officials

[liberty]

Mr. Liberty, I have not said so before because I know of no similar situation. If you can show me a time where a massed group individuals have attempted to interrupt a legislative body while shouting to hang the presiding officer of that body, I will agree that they should be met with lethal gunfire if lesser force has not stopped them. Rioters in Detroit after the killing of M L King were certainly met with gunfire; in some cases twin 50s on the back of jeeps were used to cut down buildings, with people inside.

snailgate.

What are you talking about; you know better? If Pence were in danger of being lynched, you would provide the rope. The protesters had no rope or gun, and the only person shot was an unarmed woman, murder by Lt. Michael L. Byrd. What would have been the reaction if a black woman had been murdered during a leftist protest, comrade.

Prosecutors: Capitol Rioters Intended to ‘Capture and Assassinate’ Elected Officials

It doesn’t bother you a police lieutenant murdered a woman? Is it that she was the wrong color or did she belong to the wrong tribe?

[Joe Guy]

It doesn’t bother you a police lieutenant murdered a woman? Is it that she was the wrong color or did she belong to the wrong tribe?

It doesn't bother you that your brothers and sisters wanted to hang Pence? A man who is white like all patriots?